「cis」の検索結果

Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Format and structurally validate local treatment-plan documentation after clinical decisions have already been supplied and verified by authorized licensed professionals. Use for source traceability, clinician-authored intervention records, goals and checkpoints, shared-decision records, reconciliation handoffs, and release gates—not for clinical decision-making.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Guided journey from an app idea to a deliberate architecture: boundaries, domain model, data decisions, and resilience, making only the expensive-to-reverse decisions and deferring the rest. Orchestrates eight skills phase by phase - clean-architecture, domain-driven-design, system-design, ddia-systems, software-design-philosophy, release-it, pragmatic-programmer, 37signals-way - asking the user questions at every decision point and recording results in the project docs/ folder (ARCHITECTURE.md, DESIGN-CODE-ARCHITECTURE-PLAN.md) so the journey resumes across sessions. Use when the user wants to design a new app's architecture, choose boundaries and a domain model, decide monolith versus microservices, or says 'how should I structure this app'. If a codebase already exists, use remove-technical-debt (aged), improve-code-quality (fresh prototype), or architecture-optimization (slow but working); if unvalidated, run create-business or create-app first. For one framework in isolation, invoke that skill directly.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Pressure-tests a decision, plan, or idea before it is committed to — surfacing the assumption it rests on, the case against it, and what would have to be true for it to work. Use this when weighing options, when a plan needs challenging before commitment, when you have already decided and want a genuine gut check, when processing meeting notes into decisions, or when competing initiatives need ranking. Distinct from `chief-executive`, which owns direction; this one interrogates a specific decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). ...

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when evaluating the clinical utility of a binary prediction model from a single clinical CSV file by fitting a logistic decision-curve model, plotting decision and clinical-impact curves, and exporting summary outputs. NOT for: survival calibration, ROC-only discrimination analysis, nomogram construction, or time-to-event outcomes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Never get auto-renewed into another year again — the contract inventory with the dates that matter (notice deadlines, not renewal dates), the calendar system with decision-time buffers, and the renewal-decision ritual that renegotiates instead of rubber-stamping. Use when asked track our contracts and renewals, we got auto-renewed again, when do we have to decide on this vendor, or set up renewal management. Produces the inventory with notice-deadline math, the alert system, the renewal-decision checklist, and the negotiation-window playbook.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Present a design to a client so they can make a decision rather than react to a picture — the brief restated, the moves explained against it, the options with their trade-offs, and a specific decision requested. Use when asked to present a design to a client, prepare a design review meeting, present concept options, or when a client keeps changing their mind after sign-off. Produces the presentation structure, the brief-to-design traceability, the options with honest trade-offs, the cost and programme position, and the decision record that makes sign-off stick.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EMC pre-compliance risk analysis for KiCad PCB designs — 18 check categories, 44 rule IDs covering ground planes, decoupling, I/O filtering, switching harmonics, clock routing, differential pair skew, board edge radiation, PDN impedance, return paths, crosstalk, ESD protection, shielding, and magnetic leakage from switching inductors. Produces severity-ranked risk report with pre-compliance test plan. Supports FCC Part 15, CISPR 32, CISPR 25 (automotive), MIL-STD-461G. SPICE-enhanced when available. Use when the user asks about EMC, EMI, radiated/conducted emissions, FCC compliance, CE marking, CISPR, ground plane issues, decoupling strategy, clock routing EMC, switching noise, differential pair skew, or whether their board will pass EMC testing. Also for "will this pass FCC?", "check my EMC", "is my ground plane okay?", "check my decoupling", or "generate an EMC test plan".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name the type inside the subject to skip the type question. Planning a feature or an intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore:review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Record a decision, document existing code, or file a supplied research material. Modes: document decision (ADR, RFC, or rule), document code (spec, doc, guide, or scenario for existing behavior), document research (only when a finished report or one external material is already in hand). Use for 'we decided', 'record this decision', 'document why we chose X', 'make it our standard', 'draft an RFC', 'should we switch to Y' proposals, 'resolve the RFC', 'we accepted the proposal', 'document the auth module', 'capture how the payment system works', reference material, how-to instructions, or a user flow with examples over an existing spec. Name any document type inside the subject — journey, prd, idea, or cpat included — to get exactly that type. Planning a feature or an unnamed intended user journey → /archcore:plan. Checking docs against code or docs health → /archcore:review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

EMC pre-compliance risk analysis for KiCad PCB designs — 18 check categories, 44 rule IDs covering ground planes, decoupling, I/O filtering, switching harmonics, clock routing, differential pair skew, board edge radiation, PDN impedance, return paths, crosstalk, ESD protection, shielding, and magnetic leakage from switching inductors. Produces severity-ranked risk report with pre-compliance test plan. Supports FCC Part 15, CISPR 32, CISPR 25 (automotive), MIL-STD-461G. SPICE-enhanced when available. Use when the user asks about EMC, EMI, radiated/conducted emissions, FCC compliance, CE marking, CISPR, ground plane issues, decoupling strategy, clock routing EMC, switching noise, differential pair skew, or whether their board will pass EMC testing. Also for "will this pass FCC?", "check my EMC", "is my ground plane okay?", "check my decoupling", or "generate an EMC test plan".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

INVOKE THIS SKILL when routing a LangGraph agent with a decision model (TypeSafe Jev, SemIf) instead of an LLM, or when auditing an existing agent for LLM calls that only produce a routing decision. Covers langchain-typesafe Noul/Choice/Score, reading answers correctly, threshold design, and LangSmith Gateway wiring.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when responding to an American Economic Review: Insights (AER: Insights) conditional-accept decision — addressing the editor's letter within the short window, usually without a second referee round. Drafts a concise, decisive response and revision plan; it does not redo the analysis (see aeri-robustness / aeri-identification).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Runs cis-pQTL Mendelian randomization for drug-target validation using UKB-PPP (Olink), deCODE (SomaScan), Fenland, INTERVAL, ARIC, and FinnGen-PPP proteomes plus colocalization triangulation, phenome-wide on-target adverse-effect scans, cross-platform Olink/SomaScan replication, and PAV (protein-altering variant) sensitivity. Use when nominating or de-risking a drug target from plasma-proteome GWAS, mimicking pharmacological inhibition via cis-pQTL instruments, separating shared-causal from LD-confounded signal under the Schmidt 2020 cis-MR framework, screening on-target adverse phenotypes pheWAS-style, or producing publication-grade STROBE-MR plus PP.H4 evidence for a target gene.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Build or review source-backed descriptive, diagnostic, predictive, and prescriptive analysis for consequential decisions. Use when an agent must profile and safely prepare uploaded data, turn a real dataset or research question into a reproducible study, investigate drivers without overstating causality, validate a model, compare feasible actions under dependent uncertainty and tail risk, trace every parameter to evidence and approval, or produce an answer-first analytical report across health, business, finance, policy, engineering, operations, behavioral science, AI, or planning.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Collecting and synthesizing user feedback across channels (support tickets, NPS, in-app feedback, sales calls, social mentions, customer councils) into a continuous signal that informs product decisions. The triage discipline that distinguishes loudest-voice (whoever complains most wins) from averaged-noise (every signal weighted equally) from triaged-synthesis (signal weighted by source quality, frequency, and decision relevance). Triggers on user feedback, customer feedback aggregation, NPS, support ticket analysis, customer councils, feedback synthesis, voice of customer, feedback triage, in-app feedback. Also triggers when feedback channels overflow with volume that does not produce decisions, when the loudest-voice problem is steering roadmap, or when continuous feedback streams need synthesis discipline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Designing interactive calculators (ROI calculators, pricing estimators, savings projections, mortgage calculators, custom assessments) that deliver real decision-support value while serving as lead magnets and qualified-traffic generators. Honest about vanity-calculator (no real value), lead-trap (hides the answer behind email), and transparent-decision-tool (gives the result and earns the email through tiered value) patterns. Triggers on calculator, ROI calculator, pricing estimator, savings calculator, custom calculator, interactive tool, decision tool, financial calculator. Also triggers when an audience needs a calculation-driven lead magnet, when a vanity calculator is producing leads but no qualified ones, or when a calculator is being scoped for the first time.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A discipline for designing experiments (A/B tests, multivariate, holdouts) so the results actually answer the question you asked. Hypothesis writing, sample size, duration, segment analysis, running discipline, matching a result to a pre-committed decision rule, and the common failure modes that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is planning a test that has not run yet: framing a hypothesis, sizing the sample, setting duration, choosing guardrails, or deciding whether something is worth testing at all. Triggers on design an experiment, experiment plan, A/B test, split test, multivariate test, holdout, experiment hypothesis, sample size, minimum detectable effect, MDE, test duration, guardrail metric, no peeking, pre-committed decision rule, is this worth testing. Use `experimentation-analytics` instead when the test has already run and the question is how to read the result panel.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

A platform decision framework for experimentation. When to use Statsig vs PostHog vs GrowthBook vs Optimizely vs Amplitude vs Eppo vs Kameleoon. How to migrate between them. How to coordinate when multi-platform is genuinely warranted. The decisions that compound for years and the ones you can defer. Triggers on which experimentation platform, choose Statsig vs PostHog, evaluate experimentation tools, switch experimentation platform, migrate from Optimizely, consolidate experimentation tools, multi-platform experimentation, experimentation platform decision, ab test platform selection, feature flag platform vs experiment platform, warehouse-native experiments, vendor lock-in experimentation. Also triggers when a team is asking about cost, governance, or migration cost across experimentation tools, or when an evaluation is starting.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

How to read experiment results without fooling yourself. Confidence intervals, p-values, multiple testing, sequential testing, CUPED, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metrics, network effects, dashboard reconciliation, and the interpretation failures that produce confidently wrong shipping decisions. Use this skill whenever the user is reading a finished experiment result panel and about to make a ship, kill, or iterate decision, or when an experiment number does not match the dashboard number. Triggers on read experiment results, result panel, ship or kill decision, p-value, confidence interval, statistical significance, multiple testing, peeking, sequential testing, CUPED, variance reduction, heterogeneous treatment effects, ratio metric, network effects, inconclusive test, experiment versus dashboard mismatch. Use `experiment-design` instead when the test has not run yet and the question is hypothesis, sample size, duration, or what to test.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turning research artifacts into actionable PM insight. Customer interviews, user research notes, support ticket reviews, sales call transcripts, survey data, in-app feedback, all synthesized into the decisions they are meant to inform. The discipline of moving from raw discovery data to clear product direction without losing signal in the synthesis or fabricating insight that was not actually there. Triggers on research synthesis, customer interview synthesis, user research analysis, discovery readout, research insights, sales call analysis, support ticket analysis, qualitative data analysis. Also triggers when a team has done research but cannot turn it into decisions, when synthesis is producing pretty decks but no roadmap movement, or when an upcoming PM decision needs to be grounded in research already conducted.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Builds a high-fidelity interactive legal assessment as a single self-contained HTML artifact. Output includes a live countdown timer, contract review tasks with hover-annotated problem clauses, candidate answer textareas, model answers hidden behind reveal blocks, scenario-based legal memo tasks, strategy and function-building questions, and a pre-submission checklist that encodes the marking criteria. Use when the user needs to (1) assess a legal candidate with a realistic timed exercise, (2) train or onboard junior lawyers using problem sets rather than doctrine, (3) help a candidate prepare for a real take-home assessment they are facing, (4) build educational materials for law students, in-house teams, or compliance training, or (5) produce scenario-based training modules on specific legal topics. Triggers on "legal test", "take-home", "mock exam", "contract redline exercise", "candidate assessment", "legal training exercise", "practice test", or similar phrasing even when informal.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。